Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail that the `narrative` field carries the answer and that short-received closed shipments are included, but discloses no other behavior (auth, caching, limits).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by intent mapping. No filler or restated title text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by telling the agent where to read the result (the `narrative` field) and what domains are covered. Some return-shape detail is still left implicit, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single optional marketplace_id parameter, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the parameter; a 3 baseline is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (FBA inbound shipments) and enumerates exactly what it reports: in-transit status, units sent vs received, status/destination warehouse, and short-received closed shipments. The scope is narrow enough that an agent can separate it from siblings like get_inventory_reconciliation or get_stock_history without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Maps three concrete user intents ('where is my shipment', 'has Amazon received my stock', 'is anything missing from a shipment') directly onto this tool, which is strong positive routing. It does not state when not to use it or name a competing sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.